[Distutils] Timeframe of 2.0 again?

Bob Ippolito bob at redivi.com
Mon Oct 27 09:26:10 EST 2003

On Oct 27, 2003, at 9:03 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

> Moore, Paul wrote:
>> From: Anthony Baxter [mailto:anthony at interlink.com.au]
>>>>> "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote
>>> FWIW, eGenix still ships 1.5.2 compatible packages and we use
>>> the CVS version of distutils to built the binary packages.
>> I'm probably being dense here, but why don't you use the version
>> of distutils that came with Python (or for Python versions before
>> distutils was in the standard library, a fixed distutils version
>> compatible with that Python version) to build the binary packages?
>> It may be more complex to keep the build environment set up, but
>> surely that's a one-off cost to the distributor, rather than a
>> significant reason for constraining the development of distutils?
> Not so: in that case we'd have to keep in sync with at
> least 5 different versions of distutils deployed out there.

Would it be prohibitively hard to maintain two versions of your 
setup.py file?  One for distutils pre-2.0, and one for 2.0?  Pre-2.2 
platforms would be supported by distutils pre-2.0, and everything else 
would be on 2.0.  I can't imagine that there will be too many people 
that still need *new* pre-2.2 packages by the time that distutils 2.0 


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list